Okay, I've only recently (3-4 months ago) noticed we had user mhchem around. And yes, my primeval coding "skills" is probably the source of this ignorance.
I recently approved yet another one of user mhchem's edits, and I can't help but notice that all of his proposed edits (or at least, all the ones I find in the review queue) are perfectly acceptable. It's gotten to the point where I can just hit the "approve" edit button (once I see that he's the one who proposed it) without giving the revision more than a cursory glance.
At this point (he has about 1900 rep), it would seem prudent to assume that user mhchem will continue to make constructive edits (if it wasn't obvious already). However, there have been multiple occasions where his edits were held up (> 1 hour) for want of other reviewers.
Yes, I know the whole idea of the rep-linked editing privilege thingy is to make sure that users have found their feet around here before letting them edit with impunity ( "impunity" = "not having to wait ages for someone else's approval"). This was the path all of us (sans the pro tempore Mods) had to follow.
But I'm talking about user mhchem here... from what I gather, the man created mhchem for God's sake. I find it strange that he'd still have to wait it out in the queues.
In short, what I'm getting at is:
User mhchem is an active and responsible user. The longer he takes to hit the 2000 rep (even 3000 rep... we could always use another hand at closing-reopening stuff), the more we stand to lose as a community.
So I've resolved 1 to make a case in favor of Chem.SE's smooth running,
I propose that bounties be placed on any of mhchem's answers here so as to get him to the 2000-3000 rep mark . The bounties need not be placed purely for the sake of inflating mhchem's rep; you should browse through his answers (which incidentally, are all worthy of bounties) and add a bounty on (the question of) any answer you deem worthy of a bounty.
(You can also think of this as me trying to direct everyone's attention to a bunch of good answers, instead of conniving with everyone to inflate someone's rep)
Alternatively, you can choose to upvote answers and questions as well (though this will take a bit longer for him to reach the 2000-3000 rep). As a helpful reminder: just don't go on an upvote spree, the system will recognize it as an "unnatural" inflation of votes and reverse all of it (I have, ahem, "experience" in this matter 2 ... so take my word for it).
1. I've been led to believe that meta.chem is quite liberal. Please don't crucify me for this post if it was in bad taste
2. I went through getafix's answers once, decided I liked them all, and went on an upvote spree. At the end of the day, all those votes were withdrawn. Happened a few months after I joined
After reading penta's answer (+ jonsca's and Jan's comments), it suddenly dawned on me that this was a ridiculously crappy idea. Now that I've been made to see light, I won't be pushing for this any more.
End of horror story